In the past, floor mats, consisting of rubber backed carpet tuft, were made with either a smooth back, primarily for solid or non carpeted floors, or with a variety of “grippers” or “cleats” arranged to reduce the movement on carpeted floors. However, both of these approaches resulted in floor mats that were not skid resistant on smooth floors, especially those floors with high traffic areas or loads being moved over them. The movement of the mat in the gripper/cleat mat design results from the force of foot and vehicle traffic on the mat which causes a deformation around the compressed area and then upon removal of such force the mat returns to a different position. For the smooth back mats, movement of the mat results from similar forces and the lack of any device or feature intended to secure the mat in place.
A number of approaches have been taken to attempt to reduce the movement of mats. One known approach to the problem is to fasten the mat to the intended surface by various devices, such as that suggested by Kessler in U.S. Pat. No. 6,068,908 which utilizes a system by which a mat is fastened to the surface using a clip system. While this approach is well-developed, it results in floor mats that are difficult or impossible to move from place to place and the structures required to attach the mat add cost to the mat and difficulty to the installation. Also, attached mats are more rigid.
Another approach involves the use of a frame into which the mat is placed, such as the frames used by Moffitt, Jr. in U.S. Pat. No. 4,361,614 and Kessler in U.S. Pat. No. 6,042,915. The frame can be located upon the flooring surface or inlaid to be flush with the flooring surface. In either circumstance, unless the frame is fastened as mentioned above or embedded in the surface, the frame still has a tendency to shift on the surface. If the frame is fastened or embedded, the other problems mentioned above still remain.
Another approach involves the use of suction cups, such as those commonly found on shower and bath mats, examples of which can be found by Lindholm in U.S. Pat. No. 6,014,779 in which the corners of a rectangular mat are held by four suction cups and by Gavlak in U.S. Pat. No. 2,081,992 in which a plurality of suctions cups hold the bathtub mat to the surface. While this approach provides acceptable slip-resistance for light shower and bath mat applications, traditional suctions cups are not sufficient to provide sufficient anti-skidding forces to prevent slipping and movement in high traffic and high load areas. Traditional suction cups also result in a wavy mat surface which is more difficult for individuals and loads to traverse.
As mentioned, existing approaches to reducing movement of mats include significant limitations. Further, the known approaches require additional space, components, installation effort and expense. As a result, significant improvement can still be made relative to reducing the movement of mats.